lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Review

Visualization for planning and management of oceans and coasts

Michelle E. Portman*

Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion e Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online

* Tel.: þ972 4 8294067; fax: þ972 4 8294617.E-mail addresses: michellep@cc.technion.ac.il, mic

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.06.0180964-5691/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This paper reviews visualization tools available to environmental planners and managers working onocean and coastal environments. The practice of visualization involves making and manipulating imagesthat convey novel phenomena and ideas. First I describe visualization within the context of visualenvironmental communication, an emerging and rapidly evolving discipline. A review of the literature onvisualization is provided and a typology of cartographic visualization and scene simulation is proposed.Ways to make visualizations relevant for work with the public and policy makers is discussed. Whilesignificant progress has been made in the area of visualization for climate change with much of itfocusing on coastal impacts, little attention has been given to visualizing the marine environment withinthe framework of visualization studies. More technical work on integrating maps and scenes is neededfor planning and management of ocean and coasts, including research on advanced GIS methods fordecision-making and virtual reality.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Rachel Carson, a founder of the modern environmental move-ment, wrote three books about oceans e all best sellers e beforewriting her most famous book: Silent Spring. Few may rememberthese ocean primers. The second of these books, The Sea Around Us(1952), was adapted to film following its publication. Beyond thebusiness angle, is the idea that a book, using written words toinform about the sea world, was not enough. Director Irwin Allen(later coined the “Master of Disaster” for films like The PoseidonAdventure and Towering Inferno) turned Carson's book into anentertaining look at a world unknown to most of the viewingpublic. This adaptationwent on to win the Academy Award for BestDocumentary Feature in 1953.

Over half a century later, reams of information exist aboutoceans going far beyond what Carson likely dreamed possible.Much of today's data documents the ongoing degradation of oceansand coasts and the implications for the rest of our planet. This in-formation is essential for planners and various other professionalsincreasingly involved in efforts of marine spatial planning (Collieet al., 2013; Eastern Research Group, 2010; Ehler and Douvere,2009). How can professionals get the word out about the oceans'predicament so that this information can best be used for decision-

helle@rozin.com.

making in a marine planning context? What tools are at theirdisposal? Visualization is clearly one of them. A case in point is thepivotal role visual simulation played in the approval of the array of130 wind turbines for energy production off the coast of Cape Codin 2010. Much of the debate concerning the impact of the offshorewind farm hinged on the accuracy of simulated seascapes (Phadke,2010).

Marine and coastal environments engender special commu-nication challenges. Visualization techniques such as maps,graphical displays and virtual reality, are particularly importantas environments being impacted by development are fartherfrom shore. In these locations which are often purposefully farfrom population clusters, environments are unfamiliar to thegeneral public and policy makers. They are hard, if not impos-sible, for much of the public to access. Dramatic changes aretaking place in oceans due to climate change that require both 3D(depth) and 4D (time) representation capabilities. While therehas been some work on visualizing climate change both throughsimulation maps and scenes along coastlines (see Shaw et al.,2009), communicating about climate change effects in the deepsea lags far behind.

Environmental planners often obtain information about thephysical world and use it to improve foresight. They also need tomake it easier for stakeholders to examine their ownmedium-termand long-term futures, to envision what is virtually inaccessible orto envision what doesn't yet exist. This article reviews currentprogress on visualization techniques for planning andmanagement

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185 177

of oceans and coasts from a general technical perspective. It dis-cusses communication tools for two target audiences: the publicand policy makers.

I draw on work in the area of visual environmental communi-cation and visual representation. I begin by placing the topic ofvisualization for oceans and coasts into the wider trajectory ofresearch on visual representations of the environment as a form ofcommunication. Maps and visual scenes are discussed. Scenes inthis context refer to a full range of imagery including photos,movies, video, imaginaries and more. These types of scenic imagesare well-known mechanism for planning and management, oftenused to facilitate public participation and as a basis for decision-making about terrestrial environments. This article serves as a re-view of current progress on researching these mechanisms withinsights highlighting new directions and further research needs forseascape visualization.

2. Visual communication

The idea that “seeing is knowing” is well entrenched inWesternsociety (Jenks, 1995). Therefore, research on how images areperceived and how visuals influence the viewer is important. Toanswer these question researchers have drawn on psychology,neuroscience, cognitive science and communications (Hasson et al.,2008) which has led to a significant body of knowledge sought bymedia professionals and just about anyone who has an agenda topromote. The practice of visualization involves making andmanipulating images that convey novel phenomena and ideas andtherefore both the informative and the ideological come into play.Tufte (1990) describes visualization as a medium for clarifyingcertain complex data and it has great advantages over the writtenword or the voice alone. The visual sense is by far the mostdominant component of human sensory perception (Bruce et al.,1996).

Recent work on visualization promotes expanding the sense ofthe visual, incorporating political economy of all types of repre-sentation e television, film, photographs, across different fields,and including the broadest range of representations possible e

frommaps, to photos, to visual representation of data in graphs andtables (Hansen and Machin, 2013; Valiela, 2009). Environmentalvisualizations could be 2D, 3D or 4D maps, graphical representa-tions of data or real, imagined and/or manipulated scenes such asphoto images shown in a virtual reality setting.

Visualization has been studied in recent years within thecontext of environmental communication1 (Hansen and Machin,2013). Environmental communication is a relatively new disci-pline but one gaining in interest, especially as tools such ascrowdsourcing and social media monopolize channels of everydayinteractions and local activism takes on global challenges, such aschanging behaviors to mitigate climate change (Sheppard, 2012).The discipline emerged as a field of research in its own right for twomain reasons. First, researching all aspects of communication onenvironmental issues eincluding those doing the communicating,their positions, historical-political affiliations and means ofcommunication eis necessary to fully understand the scope, scaleand content of socio-environmental problems. The second reason isthat in the face of the major environmental crises of our time,communication influences public opinion and it can promote sus-tainable behaviors (Katz-Kimchi, 2013). The discipline has

1 Article 2 of the National Communication Association's charter for the Envi-ronmental Communication Commission declares ‘‘The purpose of the Commissionis to promote scholarship, research, dialogue, teaching, consulting, service andawareness in the area of environmental communication’’ (1998, para. 2).

developed such that it considers myriad modes of communicationfrom discourse and rhetoric to conservation and environmentalprotection as themes in popular media (see Cox, 2013).

Images have a major role in popular media and therefore anemphasis of environmental communication deals with the visual.Within the framework of environmental communication, scholarlywork analyzes how different modes of representation influence theviewer; such analyses have focused on a broad range of environ-mental advocacy media campaigns, such as those dealing withwildlife conservation (Milstein, 2008), climate change (Sheppard,2012) and pollution protection (Schwarz, 2013). In regards togeneral environmental advocacy, researchers have found thattelevision and other media increasingly use decontextualizedglobal, symbolic and iconic images to reach a more universalaudience, disconnected from a particular geographic/historicalplace and time or a particular social/cultural milieu (Hansen andMachin, 2008). But beyond the “aspatial” (non-spatial) nature ofenvironmental representation in the popular media that largelyignores geographic location, landscape assessment research dealswith connecting images to place and vice versa (Lange, 2011;Orland, 1992). For example, as local activism takes on global chal-lenges, such as changing behaviors to mitigate climate change orfor conservation planning, more research on visualization is place-based. In the case of sea-level rise, the focus has been on visualizingthe land and sea interface where communities may be mostimpacted in order to mobilize viewers to take action or makedecisions.

3. Visual representations of the environment

Hansen and Machin (2013) claim that the public vocabulary onthe environment is to a large extent a visual one. Scholars such asChias and Abad (2013) and Lange (2011) have brought the study ofvisualization into the realm of environmental planning. The role ofplanning has evolved over the years to frequently be a communi-cation between planners and communities, where planners guidethe communities to decisions (Cinderby, 2010; Kingston, 2007).However, these decisions by communities may be incorporated, ornot, by decision-makers (Arnstein, 1969; Randolph, 2011). Oppositethe public, or community members, are the decision-makers whousually determine policy. The planner may be somewhere in themiddle, bridging the science-policy gap while infusing opinion,knowledge and preferences of the public into the decision makingprocess.

Communication of knowledge between the scientific andmanagement communities can be a difficult process complicatedby the distinctive nature of the career goals of practitioners, sci-entists and decision-makers. Planning practitioners are oftenworking to implement the goals of their clients, scientists are busyresearching topics that are “hot”, current and fundable, whereasdecision-makers are at the mercy of elected officials and their ap-pointees. In the latter case, goals are short-term e i.e., somethingneeds to get done during the incumbent's term eand for academicscientists, time is needed to conduct experiments, write aboutthem and ensure continued funding. Therefore, the use of visualrepresentations by environmental planners for interfacing betweenscience and policy has become important, especially when time-frames are short and data is complex (Gill et al., 2013). Visuals thatoften take the form of maps in a planning context (Smith andBrennan, 2012) can reduce or convey complexity of situationsthat call for timely decisions.

Visual researchers point out that we are increasingly sur-rounded by an immense proliferation of visual images such that thetraditional division between maps and other image types hasbecome blurred (Smith and Brennon, 2012; McKinnon, 2011).

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185178

However, for purposes of this review visualizations are categorizedas two main types: maps and scenes. This article uses a very broaddefinition of “scene”. The term refers to any type of image portrayedthrough a variety of media, including, film, photography, video e

digital or analog. Advanced GIS technologies are making the com-bination of maps and scenes much easier. However, despite the

Fig. 1. Visualizing seaside views from land using Google Earth. In (b) seen and unseen areaviewpoint based on a digital elevation model (DEM); (c) shows the view in one direction fromof the references to colour in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the web version

ease with which one can migrate from a map to a scene whilemaintaining the geographic location of an image, the simultaneouspresentation is still rather crude with a frame transition ofteninvolved. Once the viewer is immersed in a scene, for example,using Google Earth, his location on a map has become ambiguous(See Fig. 1). Therefore the distinction holds.

in the view shed are shaded green and pink respectively as calculated from the circledthe viewpoint. The yellow line indicates the route of camera travel. (For interpretation

of this article.)

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185 179

3.1. Visualizing the environment using maps

Mapping has its roots in cartographic visualization. A 1966article in The Cartographer proposed a new term, graphicacy, tocomplement the existing termse literacy, articulacy, and numeracye already used in the field (Hallisey, 2005). “Graphicacy” is theability to communicate effectively and understand those relation-ships that cannot be expressed solely with text, spoken words, ormathematical notation through the use of visual aids, particularlymaps (Balchin and Coleman, 1966). More significant than the termitself, is the concept behind it e that words or mathematics areinsufficient to communicate about many phenomena. Over time,the notion of graphicacy has evolved into the concept of carto-graphic visualization (Hallisey, 2005).

The map-communication model of cartography textbookswidely used from the mid-1950s through the 1980s emphasizedimproving map design. These revolved around better ways to de-pict hachures and to determine optimal sizes for symbols (termed‘symbology’ in GIS; or more generally “semiotics”) to effectivelycommunicate with the map user. These concerns have much to dowith viewer (user) perception and are not trivial by any means.However, today cartographic visualization is more concerned with2D, 3D and 4D geospatial representation and accuracy, and it strivesto accomplish much more than the straight forward graphicdepiction of features.

Recognition of the power of visualization in conjunction withadvances in GIS has led to advanced uses of cartographic visuali-zation with features linked to dynamic data sets (see Fig. 2). Ex-amples of these are cartographic techniques incorporated intodecision support tools, frequently used with advanced GIS

Fig. 2. Cartographic visualization of the distribution the

applications for marine conservation planning and marine spatialplanning as discussed below. Mapping spatial information of alltypes, including images, is necessary for full understanding, espe-cially in an environmental planning (e.g., Chias and Abad, 2013) andmanagement (e.g., Orland, 1992) context; however, this coincideswith the recognition that spatial analytical techniques alone aresometimes inadequate to convey the full meaning of proposedchanges, especially for work in the marine environment (Smith andBrennan, 2012).

3.2. Land- and seascape scenes

Since the term “scene” refers to the use of an image as a simu-lation of the viewed environment, it is a type of model as is a map.However, an advantage to the use of scenes, especially manipulatedscenes for planning is the ability to depict existing conditions andproposed improvements together in a way that approximates re-ality. As long ago as the 1700s, a hinged set of slides flipped up ordown was used by architects to help clients visualize the effects ofproposed changes. These techniques were subsequentlyaugmented by photography as a tool for landscape analysis andcommunication (Zube et al., 1987). Much more than simplephotography is used today. As an example, seascape imagesgenerated through advanced ocean data collection techniques, suchas multi-beam echo sounders, can be used for much more thanpreparation of hydrographic charts for safe navigation (e.g., marinehabitat assessment, fisheries management and subsea engineering)(Mayer, 2012).

In making the jump from 2D photographs to 3D landscaperepresentations, digital landscape representations have developed

marine protected areas in the Mediterranean Sea.

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185180

from abstract and static representations to realistic visualizationscapable of being explored through dynamic spatial movement, asimmersive experiences in multiple spatial and temporal scales(Wagner, 2011; Beard et al., 2008; Lange, 2011). The use of suchvisual representations based on digital or virtual environments isestablished in planning as part of environmental impact assess-ment that invariably requires analysis of expected visual impacts(Chias and Abad, 2013; Phadke, 2010).

Spatial visualization research has addressed ways to combinemaps and scenes together for spatial and spatio-temporal visuali-zation. Such research ranges from high-resolution specific site orlandscape-unit scale (e.g., Chias and Abad, 2013) to lower resolu-tion ecosystem area-wide or regional scale (e.g., He et al., 2010),usually depending on the application and context. For example, todepict climate change (Sheppard, 2012), geo-visualizations providetemporal variation and combine 4D maps and scenes that caneffectively show time series changes at a large scale. Geo-referenced images are not necessary shown simultaneously withmaps, but rather, one type of visualization leads to another. Forexample snow cover is portrayed according to forecasted pre-dictions of snowfall. The 3D analysis (using a DEM) of where snowwill fall, leads to the creation of a 4D scene that can be viewed in avirtual reality theatre with a near-reality dramatic effect.

With perhaps the exception of spatial visualization forcommunicating about climate change, planning has focused onconveying scenes as images at the site scale, whereas fields such asenvironmental planning and management have more frequentlyaddressed the topic of cartographic visualization at area-wideregional scale. This is particularly true for visualization of the ma-rine environment (Smith and Brennan, 2012; Alain, 2011) whereoften low-resolution will suffice (e.g., He et al., 2010; Alexanderet al., 2012). There is much to be gained by bringing research onthe visualization in environmental planning and marine planningcloser together and integrating both cartographic visualization andland and seascapes (Mayer, 2012). Such integration could alsoencourage visualizations that cross landscape units so that bothterrestrial and marine environments are viewed together (SeeFig. 3).

Fig. 3. ArcScene (ESRI)-generated 3D visualization options. The four images portray different(isolines) and marine bathymetry (isobaths). The areas of interest is indicated as a transect

4. Visualization applied to oceans and coasts

Even though familiarity with the ocean and the changing natureof its resources has been so essential to the fate of human pop-ulations, it has often remained beyond serious scrutiny. In the past,sentiments often prevailed in face of facts (Airame et al., 2010).Henry David Thoreau noted in the 1850s during a visit to Cape Cod,“We do not associate the idea of antiquity with the ocean, norwonder how it looked a thousand years ago, for it was equally wideand unfathomable always” (Bolster, 2012).

The lack of understanding, knowledge and data about theoceans is almost always described among the differences betweenterrestrial andmarine environments. The terrestrial environment ismuch easier to access and more familiar to the general public thanis the marine environment (Agardy, 2000; Hynes et al., 2014).Therefore levels of public knowledge and informed-ness about theoceans are of concern to those working on marine planning (Smithand Brennan, 2012; Potts et al., 2011). Knowledge is vital fordeveloping an individual's perception of ocean and coasts and theresources they provide and it is a key component in the develop-ment of effective policies (Steel et al., 2005). Furthermore, while theplanning and management of visualization could be fast andconvenient, database development to feed models (see Fig. 5below) can be complex, time-consuming, expensive and the inte-grative use of data is not easy (de Jonge, 2007).

A report on research recently conducted in Europe on thepublic perceptions of the seas e FP7 Project KnowSeas e describescoastal communities as being on the ‘front line’ in terms of im-pacts from the implementation of marine spatial planning andconservation measures. A survey conducted among 7000 in-dividuals in seven European coastal countries concluded thatwhile the public generally recognizes the importance of the ma-rine environment, the overall effectiveness of scientific commu-nication of marine environmental issues requires furtherinvestment (Potts et al., 2011). Other reports (EuropeanCommission & DG Mare, 2012; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,2004; Pew Oceans Commission, 2003) have come to similar con-clusions as mentioned below.

perspectives and various layers of information including terrestrial-coastal topographydepicted by the yellow lines crossing terrestrial-coastal-marine land and seascapes.

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185 181

The distinction between the cartographic visualization of oceanand coastal data and scenes created to promote environmentalengagement for activism on environmental issues, e.g., climatechange (Shaw et al., 2009) or pollution prevention (Peeples, 2013),is a crucial one. Environmental communication research has leanedtowards the latter with all its socio-cultural epistemology, whereasthe former category tends towards research on best practices forconveying data. Landscape assessment and preference research hasmade some inroads by bringing GIS-modelling to bear on visualrepresentations of the environment (Lange and Bishop, 2001). Butdespite its importance, there is a lack of the use of underwaterscenes for conveying information in a science-policy context.

In regards to cartographic visualization, data collected frommarine observation projects and outcomes of marine modeling areoften too abstract to intuitively represent marine characteristics tothe general public. Data from several long standing sensor arrayssuch as weather stations, seismic monitoring networks, sea-levelgauges and a host of satellite sensor programs are supplementedby data from numerous smaller scale networks that incorporateboth fixed and mobile sensors. This growing volume of data ismulti-dimensional and heterogeneous with complex spatial andtemporal regimes and multiple variables. For example, the Gulf ofMaine Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS) has one of the longestcontinuous data records of complex, high dimensional data. TheGoMOOS array includes data buoys spatially distributed around thegulf that collect and report meteorological and oceanographicvariables hourly from multiple depths (http://gyre.umeoce.maine.edu/ or www.gomoos.org). Surface and near surface measure-ments are added to subsurface measurements that include watercolumn current profiles, temperature, salinity, ocean color, multi-wavelength light attenuation, light scattering, chlorophyll flores-cence, and dissolved oxygen. Marine planning efforts invariably usedata provided by these types of remote sensing initiatives althoughfor visual portrayal of these data there are often issues related toscale in addition to complexity (Smith and Brennan, 2012).

Researchers in the field of communication contend that pro-cessing of these data towards useful and accessible visual infor-mation should be one of the main interests of the global marinefield (He et al., 2010). Oceanographic processes always occur in a 3Dspace with features such as boundary uncertainty, time-spatialunity and dynamic tendencies that complicate visual applications(Agardy, 2000). As a case in point, as of the writing of this article,SeaSketch (formerly MarineMap), a GIS platform for interactive andcollaborative ocean planning, does not yet provide users with 3Dvisualization capabilities.

Significant advances made in detection and observation tech-nologies add knowledge, but they also add drama. These modelsand representations based on models can and should be used toraise awareness of marine and coastal issues of concern. As a casein point, the 2006 documentary movie about climate change AnInconvenient Truth, featuring former US Vice President Al Goreshowed the effects of water covering much of Manhattan and thestate of Florida as a result of sea level rise caused by future climatechange. Whether or not this reflects fact or predictions of worsecase scenarios that may never come to pass, the drama created bythe scenes depicted based on climate-change models is palpable.There is much to be learned by planners from researchers workingon visualization of climate change, much of which involvesinfusing maps and simulated scenes of coastal change effects(Sheppard, 2012).

As for deep ocean applications, advanced spatial visualizationtechniques have not effectively dealt with the importance of thethird (depth) dimension, although there are some recent advancesin this area (see Mayer, 2012). In many instances 4D (time) is dealtwith before 3D, such as evidenced in the example of simulated

flooding in the Al Gore movie. Even 3D maps and depictions areoften viewed two-dimensionally. Prohibitively expensive stereo-scopic glasses are required in a virtual-reality theatre setting withspecial software to view 3D maps and scenes in true 3D. However,new screens are under development which will make the use ofspecial glasses obsolete.

Although landscape preference assessments have rarely beenapplied to the complex marine environment, they have beenapplied to coasts, usually beaches (Ergin et al., 2006; Phillips et al.,2010). These studies have been quite good at developing indicatorsfor scenic evaluationwhichmay be particularly helpful for planningapproaches such as ecosystem-based management and decision-making incorporating ecosystem service assessment. Despite thelack of progress on environmental representation of seascapes, amarine spatial planning stakeholder analysis survey conducted inUS states and regions found visualization to be a highly desiredcomponent of the planning process with the term “visualization”appearing frequently throughout the report (Eastern ResearchGroup Inc, 2010).

The concern for visual representation for marine planningpurposes is quite new. A critical view of mapping techniques forpurposes of marine spatial planning is presented by Smith andBrennan (2012) who raise issues about the inherent reliability ofthe maps being created by themarine planning process in Scotland.The authors point out that themarinemaps used not only representreality but produce it. They draw attention to the fact that GIS,depended on for informing the management of marine areas, issusceptible to creativity and selectivity. However, this research failsto point out unique characteristics of marine spatial mapping orimaging. The authors' findings apply to terrestrial mapping just asmuch as they apply to marine and coastal situations.

Perhaps a more interesting example is that researching anongoing collaboration that articulates fishermen's way of knowingthe marine environment (Alexander et al., 2012). This is a goodexample of how traditional ecological knowledge can be incorpo-rated during a spatial planning process through the use of advancedtools of visual communication, in this case touch tablets. Suchcollaboration approximates visual research conducted that infusesthe use of virtual reality to understand environmentaleculturalinteraction (see Wagner, 2011).

The generic process for developing visualizations (See Fig. 4)includes data collection, the use of models, the purveying of theresults of models as images (combining hardware and softwaremechanisms), and finally user-interaction with the system. How-ever, it should be clear that this is an iterative process meaning thatuser interactions will both influence, and be influenced by,methods of visualization.

5. Ocean and coastal visualization for diverse audiences

Both visual images (scenes) and cartographic visualization ofmarine environments are areas needing more research; more workneeds to be done on infusing the two types of media. Research onintegrating these two types of media could bring about much bettervisualization for environmental planning which needs good solidinformation, well conveyed and accessible to both the public anddecisions makers, especially for hard to access fragile and imperiledenvironments, such as most of the globe's oceans and coastal areas.

In addition to dilemmas about what techniques to use forvisualizing geographic data with maps combined with imagery ofplace, planners are often faced with the questions about what topresent. Despite what appears above lamenting the shortcoming invisualization of all four dimensions of ocean data, there is muchavailable (Airame et al., 2010). Planners themselves must contendwith a type of information explosion. The remainder of this review

Fig. 4. A work flow to achieve the goal of visualization for coastal and ocean planning and management.

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185182

addresses points raised in the literature regarding different audi-ences, usually consisting of either the stakeholders (the public) orpolicy makers. The distinction is followed by a brief description ofadvanced visualization techniques applied for marine and coastalplanning.

5.1. Visualization for communicating with the public

A decade ago, the Pew Oceans Commission published a reportentitled America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change.The report called for ‘‘a newera of ocean literacy that links people tothe marine environment” (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). TheCommission, charged with proposing new approaches and actionsto counter deteriorating conditions in US ocean waters, concludedthat there is a ‘‘need to provide the public with understandable in-formation about the structure and functioning of coastal andmarineecosystems, how ecosystems affect daily lives, and how we affectecosystems.” Similarly, the Report of the US Commission on OceanPolicy detailing the deteriorating condition of the US coastal watersstates: ‘‘To successfully address complex ocean- and coastal-relatedissues, balance the use and conservation of marine resources, andrealize future benefits of the ocean, an interested, engaged public isessential” (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004).

More recently the European Community's Blue Growth projectreport “Scenarios and Drivers for Sustainable Growth from theOceans, Seas and Coasts” (European Commission & DG Mare,2012)2 consistently includes public engagement as an integralpart of all possible scenarios analyzed. The language used in thisreport emphasizes the importance of the concepts “public opinion”,“public acceptance” and “public conviction”. Real progress inachieving public acceptance and conviction cannot be obtainedwithout understanding (and influencing) public opinion and thiscannot be done without good channels of communication (Airameet al., 2010).

Nearly all members of the general public are either directly orindirectly involved in activities and behaviors that place ocean andcoastal areas at risk. Therefore it is important to assess the scopeand depth of policy-relevant knowledge among the public and to

2 This report builds on earlier policy initiatives to recognize the contribution ofmarine and coastal resources in realizing the Europe 2020 strategy towards sus-tainable growth.

learn where people tend to acquire their information about oceansand coasts.

Seminal research on the topic of public knowledge about oceanpolicy issues was conducted by Steel et al. (2005). This researchon “ocean literacy” investigated levels of public knowledge andinformed-ness concerningoceans.Usingdatagathered fromanationalrandom sample of over 1200 citizens, two hypothesesdtrans-situa-tional and situation-specificdwere examined as explanations ofpublic knowledge levels concerning ocean policy issues. The trans-situational hypothesis evaluates socioeconomic status (SES) as anexplanation for levels of knowledge. The situation-specific hypothesisevaluates personal experiences and contexts thatmight overcome SEScharacteristics. Interestingly, the authors reported that newspapersand the internet are likely to improve citizen knowledge on ocean is-sues, while dependence on television and radio as the main channelsof communication were found to be less effective (Steel et al., 2005).This likely has connections to visual communication theories and re-quires more investigation.

Other more general studies based on surveys of public percep-tions have found that the difference between the public and sci-entific perception of the main threats to the marine environmentsuggest that better communication is needed between the relevantauthorities conducting planning efforts and the general public (e.g.,Hynes et al., 2014). Other than conventional sources of information(i.e. newspapers, radio, television), the public learns about oceanand coasts from personal experience, such as first-hand visitationor museum displays andmovies. Such communications may be lessagenda-driven than scientistescientist communication or scientist-to-policy maker communication (Potts et al., 2011) and could alsomake significant contributions.

The coastal area is one that is well known for its propensitytoward conflicts between user groups and a frequently contentioususer base (Portman et al., 2012). Getting conflicting user groups tocome together can be impractical or impossible. Often the basictask of identifying the relevant stakeholders and convincing themto take part in a public process can be complex (St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008; Portman, 2007). Engaging hard-to-reach sectors of thepublic in planning initiatives can be challenging due to varioustypes of barriers ranging from physical (such as difficulty inattending public hearings) to technical (e.g., difficulty under-standing what is being said due to language issues or using theinternet and computers as is often the case with elderly or veryyoung populations).

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185 183

There are many tools that planners can use to facilitate publicinvolvement in marine and coastal planning and management.Researched-based guidance exists to involve the public in scopingfor impacts of marine development (see Portman, 2009), in theplanning of marine protected areas (Airame et al., 2010) and forusing participatory GIS (known as PPGIS or PGIS) to solicit socio-economic data (see St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008). These activ-ities may revolve around data generation, data presentation oractual decision-making, and will benefit greatly from the use ofadvanced visualization techniques as described below.

Fig. 5. User cases address all these factors and can lead to successful PGIS which can inturn, lead to better information and data, (e.g. through citizen science) and greaterparticipation in decision making.

3 Sometimes referred to as “on-demand software”, SaaS is a software deliverymode in which software associated data are centrally hosted on the cloud(internet).

5.2. Visualization for communicating with policymakers

As mentioned, communication of knowledge between the sci-entific and management communities can be a difficult process(Hynes et al., 2014; Airame et al., 2010). Common tools used byplanners are those that construct the future and include projectionsand forecasts derived from baseline (usually scientific) data. Aprojection is not a prediction but rather the result of entering hy-pothetical assumptions into a mechanistic quantitative procedure.A forecast represents a best guess about the future, achieved byadding judgment about the most likely future behaviors and otherassumptions. Part of the judgment required includes decision-making about the quality of input data, the type of analyticalmodel needed to provide the most realistic results, and the type ofplanning being conducted (i.e., rational comprehensive, incre-mental, adaptive etc. (see Portman et al., 2013)).

Standard methods for constructing projections used for rationalplanning, such as the cohort-component method of populationprojection or trip generation models in transportation are ac-counting systems that rely on hypothetical assumptions (Myers andKitsuse, 2000). Accuracy of baseline data is an essential issue to getprojections right. Spatial information databases are needed withimproved visualization capabilities, both for charts and in 3D tohelp the planner make decisions on data accuracy. For example,accurate transitions must be made by combining surface imageryfrom airborne or satellite mapping with precise underwater map-ping from sonars and bathymetry charts (Alain, 2011; Mayer, 2012).

By contrast, advocacy planners may be involved in drawingattention to the need for policy change through the use of afocusing event as an agenda-setting mechanism. Agenda setting isthe collection of activities engaged in to direct the attention ofpublic officials toward a particular problem and it can benefitgreatly fromvisualization. An interesting case in point is the use of amethod called Rapid Assessment Visual Expedition (RAVE). In thesummer of 2010, the International League of Conservation Pho-tographers (iLCP) and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) com-bined forces and used a RAVE to draw attention to theenvironmental issues surrounding the Chesapeake Bay watershed(see Schwarz, 2013). In a short period of time, advocates for the bayenlisted the services of expert photographers to generate imagesthat were used as communication tools. The event in itself broughtpolicy-makers to acknowledge the importance of the controversialChesapeake Bay Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act.

The general public has been gaining in importance also as pro-ducers of visualization materials, through providers such as GoogleEarth (Lange, 2011) or through citizen science initiatives. Aninteresting case of citizen science for which information collectedby the public and later used by policy makers for marine planningof tidal energy infrastructure took place around the Mull in Kintyre(see Alexander et al., 2012). The planner's role may be that of gatekeeper, weeding through visualized material (cartographic orphotographic) to provide to policy-makers. Both communitymembers and policy makers should be considered when preparing

user cases as described in the next section and as illustrated inFig. 5.

6. Advanced visualization tools

Visual methods should make the information available andinterpretable to a variety of audiences and should be suitable to theplanning and management tasks at hand. Advanced visualizationtechniques gaining ground in recent years for coastal and oceanplanning include web-based GIS platforms (e.g., interactive deci-sion support tools) and immersion and reality theatre (e.g., IMAX360� screens and high-resolution sound systems). These systemsare at the cutting edge of efforts to link between environmentalconditions, proposed development through marine planning andcoastal zone management initiatives.

6.1. Advanced GIS

Web-based systems, or what is considered software as a service(SaaS)3 are being tailored to planning initiatives. They can allowanyone with a web-browser to actively participate in marine andcoastal planning efforts. These applications use GIS and they arebecoming more participatory, intuitive and user-friendly all thetime.

Some of these services are quite basic; they simply allow“layers” of information to be uploaded and displayed. By turninglayers “on” or “off” these systems are used to inform users aboutwhat exists where. On-line images show the geographic location ofmarine and coastal infrastructure, use areas, environmental con-ditions, and proposed locational boundaries. Other applications aremore complex; they apply algorithms that consider preferences,weights or chosen measures of efficiency, expressed as costs. Byprocessing information taken from GIS layers, a recommendedoption or group of options is arrived at.

An example of the first type of application, used for collaborativeplanning design is SeaSketch. It allows users to (1) initiate a project

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185184

by defining a study region, (2) uploadmap layers from existing webservices, (3) define “sketch classes” such as prospective marineprotected areas, transportation zones or renewable energy sites, (4)create sketches and receive automated feedback on those designs,such as the potential economic impacts of a marine protected area,and (5) share sketches and discuss themwith other users in a map-based chat forum.

Other examples of more complex decision support tools that canbe used for planning are MARXAN with ZONES and ZONATION.These have been frequently applied to marine and coastal envi-ronments, mostly with the goal of balancing conservation withdevelopment (Leathwick et al., 2008; Stewart et al., 2007). Zonationoffers the use of a number of algorithms based on what is consid-ered a step-wise heuristic. Its meta-algorithm starts from the fulllandscape and iteratively removes those areas (cells in a grid)whose loss causes the smallest marginal loss in the overall con-servation value. MARXAN uses stochastic optimisation routines(i.e., spatially explicit simulated annealing) to generate spatialreserve systems that achieve particular biodiversity representationgoals with reasonable optimality.

In choosing the type of application to use, whether to useexisting software or develop an application depends on the re-sources available and the ultimate goals of a planning process ormanagement approach. If public participation is very important,then it would be wise to carefully weigh options starting with anexercise that identifies all possible users and their needs. This canbe done by carefully researching current existing options, as theseare continuously evolving, and devising a set of “user cases”(Jacobson, 2004). User cases are frequently employed for graphicuser interface design of software applications. User cases answerquestions such as illustrated in Fig. 5 for each potential user or usergroup.

6.2. Reality-theatre

Visualization techniques have been used in planning firstthrough the use of physical models, and later through drawing andpainting. Initially perspective drawings were used. These evolvedinto before and after replications based in real-world views. Analogphotomontage and then digital photomontage became the nextgeneration (Lange and Bishop 2001). Now virtual environmentshave the potential to become cutting-edge tools for simulating landand seascapes. This can involve using theatre-like laboratories andtechnologies. An advantage of visualization techniques, such asvirtual reality that includes 3D and interactive viewing, is thatenvironments that don't yet exist or are inaccessible, can bereached virtually. That is particularly true for the marine environ-ment where physically being present in a submarine location isoften either too expensive or impractical for other reasons.

Whereas audiences will often forget information they see ingraphs, what they come closer to really experiencing throughvisualization techniques may be ‘unforgettable”. Multi-media (e.g.,sound and physical changes that affect viewing experience) scenesimulation that includes virtual reality and immersion theatre canbe connected to spatial and temporal display of maps and even dataset presentation.

In a book on visual research methods, Wagner (2011) contendsthat in their potential to link cultural ideas, socio-economics andmaterial things through visual representation and touch-basedinteraction, virtual reality environments have engenderedchanges in how we understand the world. Examples are the com-mon experience of “visiting”websites, writing on virtual “walls”, or“talking” within someone through on-line chat, so commonplacethat they have changed our definition of reality. Similarly, virtualand augmented reality technologies are increasingly being used for

research, education and soliciting feedback from the public in theplanning context.

A pertinent example of the use of virtual reality for educatingthe public about marine environments is the Deep Sea ExtremeEnvironment Pilot (DEEP). Educators at the Scripps Institute ofOceanography developed this interactive freely downloadablegame to inspire and inform about sea exploration through theoperation of remote operated vehicle (ROV) on a virtual sea floor(see http://siogames.ucsd.edu/deep.html). Although the targetaudience for its creation was middle school pupils, it will reach thepublic-at-large through its use in museums, science centers andaquariums. Science magazine awarded the game honorablemention in its 2013 Science and Engineering Visualization Contestfor the game's high quality realistic visual attributes (reported inFebruary 7, 2014 edition of Science).

7. Conclusions

This review has covered some of themethods and tools availableto environmental planners and managers working on oceans andcoasts. It focuses on crossing the science-policy divide. After all,integrating science and policy is one of the main challenges to bothefforts of integrated coastal zone management and marine spatialplanning. Some would say that planners have a moral obligation tocommunicate both to the public and to policy-makers choicesregarding the marine and coastal environment that they affect andthat they are affected by. Visualization in this context can be aboutinfluencing minds and sometimes changing behaviors, as is mostenvironmental planning and management. In order to be effective,change behaviors or inform decision making, planners must in-fluence perceptions based on what they know about the environ-ment and others have yet to learn.

At the same time though, planners need to solicit response fromthe public, who often know much more than the planners them-selves about a given situation or environment. To do so requiresmore than just transferring information through visualization tothe viewers. It demands maintaining the use of best practices, thelatest technologies appropriate to the context in terms of availableresources and viewer capacities, as well as the maintenance ofcertain standards. There is much available research to draw on ofcourse, and much of it fromwork done on terrestrial environments.The submerged environment has particular challenges and there-fore more research is needed, however, by drawing on other fieldssuch as landscape architecture and planning, cartography, conser-vation planning, and even systems analysis (e.g., user cases) theemerging field of visualization for oceans and coasts can best beserved.

Acknowledgments

This research has been partially funded by the DEMARN project-Designation and Management of Marine Reserve Networks (Eu-ropean Commission, 7th Framework Programme 2007e2013 SP3-People, Grant 268115). The author wishes to acknowledge S. Poli-nov for contributing to Fig. 1.

References

Agardy, T., 2000. Information needs for marine protected areas: scientific and so-cietal. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66 (3), 875e888.

Airame, S., Gaines, S.D., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lester, S.E., Neeley, E., 2010. Commu-nicating marine reserve science to diverse audiences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S.107, 18306.

Alain, P., 2011. New tools in multisensor GIS integration and visualization. In:Popovich, V., Claramunt, C., Devogele, T., Schrenk, M., Korolenko, K. (Eds.), In-formation Fusion and Geographic Information Systems: Towards the DigitalOcean. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

M.E. Portman / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 176e185 185

Alexander, K., J, R., Arciniegas, G., O'Higgins, T., Eikelboom, T., 2012. Interactivemarine spatial planning: siting tidal energy arrays around the mull of kintyre.PLoS One 7 (1).

Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 35 (4),216e224.

Balchin, W., Coleman, A., 1966. Graphicacy should be the fourth ace in the pack.Cartographer 3 (1), 23e28.

Beard, K., Deese, H., Pettigrew, N.R., 2008. A framework for visualization andexploration of events. Inf. Vis. 7 (2), 133e151.

Bolster, W.J., 2012. The Mortal Sea: Fishing the Atlantic in the Age of Sail. TheBelknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bruce, V., Green, P.R., Georgeson, M.A., 1996. Visual Perception, Physiology, Psy-chology and Ecology. Psychology Press, Hove, UK.

Chias, P., Abad, T., 2013. Wind farms: GIS-based visual impact assessment andvisualization tools. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 40, 229.

Cinderby, S., 2010. How to reach the ‘hard-to-reach’: the development of Partici-patory Geographic Information Systems (P-GIS) for inclusive urban design inUK cities. Area 42 (2), 239e251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00912.x.

Collie, J.S., Adamowicz, W.L., Beck, M.W., Craig, B., Essington, T.E., Fluharty, D.,Rice, J., Sanchirico, J.N., 2013. Marine spatial planning in practice. Estuar. Coast.Shelf Sci. 117 (0), 1e11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.11.010.

Cox, R., 2013. Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, third ed. Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

de Jonge, V.N., 2007. Toward the application of ecological concept in EU coastalwater management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 55, 407e514.

Eastern Research Group Inc, 2010. Marine Spatial Planning Stakeholder Analysis.NOAA Coastal Services Center, Lexington, MA, USA, p. 76.

Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: a Step-by-stepApproach Toward Ecosystem-based Management. IntergovernmentalOceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme,Paris, France, p. 99.

Ergin, A., Williams, A.T., Micallef, A., 2006. Coastal scenery: appreciation andevaluation. J. Coast. Res. 22 (4), 958e964. http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/04-0351.1.

European Commission, DG Mare, 2012. Blue Growth - Scenarios and Drivers forSustainable Growth from the Oceans, Seas and Coasts. Rotterdam/Brussels.

Gill, L., Lange, E., Morgan, E., Romano, D., 2013. An analysis of usage of differenttypes of visualization media within a collaborative planning workshop envi-ronment. Environ. Plann. B Plann. Des. 40, 742e754.

Hallisey, E.J., 2005. Cartographic visualization: an assessment and epistemologicalreview. Prof. Geogr. 57 (3), 350e364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.2005.00483.x.

Hansen, A., Machin, D., 2008. Visually branding the environment: climate change asa marketing opportunity. Discourse Stud. 10 (6).

Hansen, A., Machin, D., 2013. Researching visual environmental communication.Environ. Commun. 7 (2), 151e168 (Special Issue).

Hasson, U., Landesman, O., Knappmeyer, B., Vallines, I., Rubin, N., Heeger, D.J., 2008.Neuroscience and cinematics: the neuroscience of flim. Projections 2 (1), 1e26.

He, Y., Su, F., Du, Y., Xiao, R., 2010. Web-based spatiotemporal visualization ofmarine environment data. Chin. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 28 (5), 1086e1094.

Hynes, S., Norton, D., Corless, R., 2014. Investigating societal attitudes towards themarine environment of Ireland. Mar. Policy 47 (0), 57e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.002.

Jacobson, I., 2004. Use cases e yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Softw. Syst. Model. 3(3), 210e220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10270-004-0060-3.

Jenks, C. (Ed.), 1995. Visual Culture. Routledge, London.Katz-Kimchi, M., 2013. Environmental communication and the public sphere [in

Hebrew]. Ecol. Environ. 3 (3), 240e247.Kingston, R., 2007. Public participation in local policy decision-making: the role of

web-based mapping. Cartogr. J. 44 (2), 138e144.Lange, E., 2011. 99 volumes later: we can visualise. Now what? Landsc. Urban Plan.

100 (2011), 403e406.Lange, E., Bishop, I.D., 2001. Our visual landscape: analysis, modelling visualization

and protection. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54, 1e2.Leathwick, J.R., Moilanen, A., Francis, M., Elith, J., Taylor, P., Julian, K., Hastie, T., 2008.

Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas inoffshore waters. Conserv. Lett. 1, 91e102.

Mayer, L., 2012. Recent advances in ocean mapping. Mapping the Ocean 7 (2), 1e12.McKinnon, I., 2011. Explanding cartographic practices in the social sciences. In:

Margolis, E., Pauwels, L. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Visual Research Methods.Sage Publications Ltd, London, pp. 72e95.

Milstein, T., 2008. When whales “speak for themselves”: communication as amediating force in wildlife tourism. Environ. Commun. 2 (2), 173e192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524030802141745.

Myers, D., Kitsuse, A., 2000. Constructing the future in planning: a survey of the-ories and tools. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 19, 221e231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900301.

Orland, B., 1992. Data visualization techniques in environmental management: aworkshop. Landsc. Urban Plan. 21 (4), 237e239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(92)90030-4.

Peeples, J., 2013. Imaging toxins. Environ. Commun. 7 (2), 191e210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.775172 (Special Issue).

Pew Oceans Commission, 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for SeaChange. A Report to the Nation. Pew Charitable Trust, Arlington, Virginia,pp. 1e166.

Phadke, R., 2010. Steel forests or smoke stacks: the politics of visualisation in theCape Wind controversy. Environ. Polit. 19 (1), 1e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010903396051.

Phillips, M.R., Edwards, A.M., Williams, A.T., 2010. An incremental scenic assess-ment of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, UK. Geogr. J. 176 (4), 291e303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00361.x.

Portman, M., 2009. Involving the public in impact assessment for offshore renew-able energy facilities. Mar. Policy 33 (22), 332e338.

Portman, M.E., 2007. Zoning design for cross-border marine protected areas: theRed Sea Marine Peace Park case study. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 50, 499e522.

Portman, M.E., Esteves, L.E., Le, X.Q., Khan, A.Z., 2012. Improving integration forintegrated coastal zone management: an eight country study. Sci. Total Environ.439, 194e201.

Portman, M.E., Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Katsanevakis, S.,Possingham, H., di-Carlo, G., 2013. He who hesitates is lost: Why conservation ofthe Mediterranean sea is necessary and possible now. Mar. Policy 42, 270e279.

Potts, T., O'Higgins, T., Mee, L., Pita, C., 2011. Public Perceptions of Europe's Seas. APolicy Brief: EU FP7 KNOWSEAS Project.

Randolph, J., 2011. Environmental Land Use Planning & Management. Island Press,Washington DC.

Schwarz, E.A.G., 2013. Visualizing the Chesapeake Bay watershed debate. Environ.Commun. 7 (2), 169e190 (Special Issue).

Shaw, A., Sheppard, S., Burch, S., Flanders, D., Wiek, A., Carmichael, J., Robinson, J.,Cohen, S., 2009. Making local futures tangible: dSynthesizing, downscaling,and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building.Glob. Environ. Change 19 (4), 447e463.

Sheppard, S.R.J., 2012. Visualizing Climate Change: a Guide to Visual Communica-tion of Climate Change and Developing Local Solutions. Routledge, New York.

Smith, G., Brennan, R.E., 2012. Losing our way with mapping: thinking criticallyabout marine spatial planning in Scotland. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 69, 210e216.

St Martin, K., Hall-Arber, M., 2008. The missing layer: geo-technologies, commu-nities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32 (5),779e786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015.

Steel, B.S., Smith, C., Opsommer, L., Curie, S., Warner-Steel, R., 2005. Public oceanliteracy in the United States. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 48, 97e114.

Stewart, R.R., Ball, I.R., Possingham, H.P., 2007. The effect of incremental Reservedesign and changing reservation goals on the long-term efficiency of reservesystems. Conserv. Biol. 21 (2), 346e354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00618.x.

Tufte, E., 1990. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.

Final Report. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC.Valiela, I., 2009. Doing Science: Design, Analysis and Communication of Scientific

Research. Oxford University Press, New York.Wagner, J., 2011. Seeing things: visual research and material culture. In: Margolis, E.,

Pauwels, L. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Visual Research Methods. Sage Pub-lications Ltd, London, pp. 72e95.

Zube, E.H., Simcox, D.E., Law, C.S., 1987. Perceptual landscape simulations: historyand prospect. Landsc. J. 6 (1), 62e80.